You're joking, rght? THe constutional amendments etc that define marriage as between one man and one woman are exactly the issue. Those are exactly the measures that gay activists judges have been striking down. States have the Constitutional authority to decide who is eligible to marry, just as they do who is eligible to get a drivers license or who is eligible to get a gun carry permit. No one has made the argument that states are denying rights to people with misdemeanors when they deny them carry permits. The state is empowered to set criteria. Same with marriage licenses.You may tell anyone anything you like, but it remains subjective opinion and factually wrong.That's true. I cannot explain how it causes hunger in Africa. Or how it causes global warming either. That doesnt mean those things have ever been arguments against "gay marriage." I can tell you that defining marriage is a state power which is being undermined by an activist judiciary. I can tell you that gay marriage is poor public policy because it undermines the purpose of state sponsored marriage to begin with.Strawman argument/As a married heterosexual man, how does two gay people getting married a threat to me or my country? For those that want less gov't intervention, they should stay out of grown adults bedrooms...hyprocrites and weak minded dupes.
In other words, Rabbi can't explain how two gay people getting married threatens anyone.
The only arguments against those two are Arguments 1 and 2.
The issue has nothing to do with 'defining' marriage; indeed, all parties involved agree as to the definition of marriage and in no way seek to 'redefine' it.
The issue concerns the fact that same-sex couples are eligible to enter into marriage contracts in all 50 states, where some states seek to deny gay Americans access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.
Americans are citizens of the United States first and foremost, residents of the states subordinate to that, including gay Americans. Citizens' civil rights as guaranteed and protected by the Federal Constitution are consequently immune from attack by the states. As a fact of settled, accepted, and fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence the states have no 'authority' whatsoever to 'decide' who will or will not have his civil rights.